[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Deep Sleep is Nondual Self with objections refuted, SSSS

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Subbuji
Thank you for your lucid post.

I don’t think Michael ji is explicitly objecting to the sabījatvaṁ of ‘sat’
in suṣupti but only that ‘duality is not experienced there.’

In any case, as you importantly quoted a bhāṣya passage (a meta-analysis)
of all other bhāṣya passages) which *trumps all other bhāṣya passages*
viz.,

“तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव
सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः
Wherever in the Upanishads the state of sleep and dissolution (pralaya,
prior to creation) are referred to, it is always, by default, with the
implicit idea that it is the causal state (the potency in seed form) and
not the PURE Brahman.”

It clinches the fact that - the sacchabda-vācyaṁ brahma called prāṇa is
doubtless sabījam brahma and not shuddha brahma.

Om
Raghav



On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 at 11:26 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Michael ji,
>
> You write:
>
> //Śaṅkara writes in his commentary:
>
> *suṣuptikāle ca pareṇa brahmaṇā jīva ekatāṁ gacchati | parasmāc ca
> brahmaṇaḥ prāṇādikaṁ jagat jāyata iti vedānta maryādā.*
>
> “In the state of deep sleep, the *jīva* becomes one with the Supreme
> *Brahman*. From that same *Brahman*, *prāṇa* and the world originate—this
> is the doctrine of Vedānta.”
>
> Here too, any notion of separation between *jīva* and *Brahman* is
> rejected.//
>
> And -
>
> //Śaṅkara writes in this context:
> *sa upādhi-dvaya-uparamē suṣuptāvasthāyām upādhi-kṛta-viśeṣābhāvāt svātmani
> pralīna iva iti; svaṁ hy apīto bhavatīti ucyate*
> “When the two upādhis (gross and subtle bodies) cease in the state of deep
> sleep, and distinctions caused by adjuncts are absent, the *jīva* appears
> to be merged into its own Self. Therefore, it is said that he attains his
> own Self.”//
>
> //*Thus, in suṣupti, there is no perception not because of the presence of
> ignorance but because of the absence of duality. //*
>
> And so on.
>
> There is this statement of Shankara in the Mandukya Upanishad bhashya:
>
> Commenting at great length to the Kārikā:
>
> दक्षिणाक्षिमुखे विश्वो मनस्यन्तस्तु तैजसः ।
> आकाशे च हृदि प्राज्ञस्त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थितः ॥ २ ॥  1.2
>
>
> 2. Viśva is met with in the right eye which is his place of experience. But
> Taijasa is inside the mind. Prajña is in the space within the heart. In
> three ways he exists in the body.
>
> The relevant part of the commentary is cited here, followed by the English
> translation by Swami Gambhirananda:
>
>
> कथं प्राणशब्दत्वमव्याकृतस्य ? ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । २)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya/devanagari?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S08_V02&hl=%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%83
> >
> इति
> श्रुतेः । ननु, तत्र ‘सदेव सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya/devanagari?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S02_V01&hl=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF
> >
> इति
> प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ; नैष दोषः,* बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः
> ।*
> यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि
> जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च । यदि हि
> निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं ब्रह्माभविष्यत् , ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । ३)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha/devanagari?page=4&id=BR_C04_S05_V03&hl=%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF
> >
>  ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya/devanagari?page=2&id=T_C02_S09_V01&hl=%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87
> >
>  ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १ । ४)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Kena_pada/devanagari?page=1&id=KP_C01_V04&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF
> >
> इत्यवक्ष्यत्
> ; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३ । १२)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Gita/devanagari?page=13&id=BG_C13_V12&hl=%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87
> >
> इति
> स्मृतेः । निर्बीजतयैव चेत् , *सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः*
> पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः,
> बीजाभावाविशेषात् , ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ;
> *तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव
> सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।* अत एव ‘अक्षरात्परतः
> परः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Mundaka/devanagari?page=2&id=MD_C02_S01_V02&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%83
> >
>  ‘सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Mundaka/devanagari?page=2&id=MD_C02_S01_V02&hl=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%83
> >
>  ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya/devanagari?page=2&id=T_C02_S09_V01&hl=%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87
> >
>  ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ३ । ६)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha/devanagari?page=2&id=BR_C02_S03_V06&hl=%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF
> >
> इत्यादिना
> बीजत्वापनयनेन व्यपदेशः । तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य
> तुरीयत्वेन देहादिसम्बन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां पारमार्थिकीं पृथग्वक्ष्यति ।
> *बीजावस्थापि
> ‘न किञ्चिदवेदिषम्’ इत्युत्थितस्य प्रत्ययदर्शनाद्देहेऽनुभूयत एवेति त्रिधा
> देहे व्यवस्थित इत्युच्यते ॥*
>
> Quote:
>
> Objection: Why should the Unmanifested be called Prana (Vital Force)?
>
> Answer: Because of the Vedic text, "O good- looking one, (the individual
> soul, conditioned by) the mind is surely tethered to (that is to say, has
> for its goal) Prāṇa” (Ch. VI. viii. 2).
>
> Objection: In that text the word Prāņa means Brahman that was introduced as
> Existence in the sentence, "O good-looking one, all this was but Existence
> (Brahman) in the beginning" (Ch. VI. ii. 1).
>
> Answer: That is no valid objection. for *Existence was assumed there in a
> state of latency.* Though in that sentence the Existence-Brahman is called
> Prāna, still that Existence (-Brahman) is called Prāṇa as well as Existence
> without ruling out the state of Its being the source of the emergence of
> individual beings. Had the seedless (non-causal) state of Brahman been
> meant, the text would have declared, "Not this, not this" (Br. IV. iv. 22,
> IV. v. 15), "From which speech turns back" (Tai. II. 9). "That (Brahman) is
> surely different from the known, and, again, It is above the unknown" (Kc.
> I. 4), and so on, as it is also stated by the Smrti, "It is called neither
> existence nor non-existence" (G. XIII. 12). If Brahman in Its seedless
> (non- causal) state be meant there, then the individuals that merge in It*
> in deep sleep and dissolution* cannot reasonably re-emerge, and there will
> be the possibility of the freed souls returning to take birth again, for in
> either case, the absence of cause is a common factor. Besides, in the
> absence of any seed (of worldly state) to be burnt by the knowledge (of
> Brahman), know- ledge itself becomes useless.* Hence Existence is referred
> to as Prāņa (in the Chandogya Upanishad) and It is spoken of as the cause
> in all the Upanishads by assuming It (for the time being) to be the seed of
> others.*
>
> And it is because of this* that It is referred to by eliminating Its causal
> state i*n such Vedic texts as: "Superior to the superior Unmanifested" (Mu.
> II. i. 2), "From which speech turns back" (Tai. II. 9). "Not this, not
> this" (Br. IV. iv 22), etc. The supremely real state, free from causality,
> relation with body etc., and modes of waking etc., of that very entity that
> is called Prajña, will be spoken separately in its aspect as the Turiya
> (Fourth). *The causal state, too, is verily experienced in the body,
> inasmuch as an awakened man is seen to have such a recollection as, "I did
> not know anything (in my deep sleep)." Hence it is said, "Tridha dehe
> vyavasthitaḥ- existing in three ways in the body".*
>
> *End of quote *
>
> The point that is sought to be made is*: Shankara makes a ruling here:
> Wherever in the Upanishads the state of sleep and dissolution (pralaya,
> prior to creation) are referred to, it is always, by default, with the
> implicit idea that it is the causal state (the potency in seed form) and
> not the PURE Brahman. *
>
> *Hence the above ruling prevails over **all the statements of Shankara and
> the Upanishads in connection with the sleep/dissolution.  *
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>